Rosen 1989

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		55	0.31	48	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.15	35	0.29	41	0.21
Anderszewski 2003		83	0.20	80	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	58	0.05	82	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		62	0.29	47	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.06	70	0.05
Bacha 2000		81	0.22	68	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	46	0.07	74	0.04
Badura 1965		61	0.29	81	0.00	53	0.04	59	0.04	25	0.44	52	0.13
Barbosa 1983		71	0.25	82	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	48	0.07	69	0.05
Biret 1990		65	0.27	40	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	38	0.33	59	0.11
Blet 2003		57	0.31	64	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	56	0.06	83	0.04
Block 1995		14	0.49	41	0.00	20	0.10	16	0.58	20	0.54	21	0.56
Blumental 1952		85	0.19	85	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	56	0.05	85	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.48	8	0.01	8	0.26	9	0.66	9	0.68	9	0.67
Brailowsky 1960		31	0.41	24	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.49	4	0.71	17	0.59
Bunin 1987		74	0.25	83	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	54	0.06	71	0.05
Bunin 1987b		72	0.25	69	0.00	59	0.03	70	0.03	55	0.06	78	0.04
Chiu 1999		15	0.48	16	0.00	19	0.11	19	0.55	27	0.46	27	0.50
Cohen 1997		32	0.41	25	0.00	33	0.08	37	0.34	12	0.59	29	0.45
Cortot 1951		7	0.55	12	0.01	7	0.26	11	0.64	1	0.79	7	0.71
Csalog 1996		21	0.45	9	0.01	30	0.08	35	0.35	11	0.58	28	0.45
Czerny 1949		82	0.21	55	0.00	86	0.04	55	0.04	41	0.27	60	0.10
Czerny 1990		75	0.25	57	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	48	0.08	72	0.05
Duchoud 2007		34	0.40	14	0.00	22	0.09	22	0.50	14	0.55	25	0.52
Ezaki 2006		33	0.40	31	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.50	17	0.63	20	0.56
Falvay 1989		70	0.25	78	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	54	0.05	75	0.04
Farrell 1958		44	0.34	51	0.00	47	0.05	46	0.05	22	0.43	49	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.25	37	0.00	74	0.04	68	0.04	28	0.63	45	0.16
Fliere 1977		5	0.58	10	0.01	5	0.28	3	0.76	13	0.76	5	0.76
Fou 1978		36	0.40	33	0.00	37	0.11	36	0.35	24	0.42	36	0.38
Francois 1956		50	0.32	58	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	25	0.52	47	0.16
Friedman 1923		12	0.50	44	0.00	18	0.15	12	0.64	13	0.71	11	0.67
Friedman 1923b		13	0.49	84	0.00	17	0.12	10	0.64	15	0.70	10	0.67
Friedman 1930		22	0.44	36	0.00	24	0.10	26	0.49	23	0.59	23	0.54
Garcia 2007		35	0.40	21	0.00	32	0.07	34	0.36	20	0.45	35	0.40
Garcia 2007b		88	0.10	86	0.00	88	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.05	86	0.04
Gierzod 1998		64	0.27	56	0.00	52	0.04	60	0.04	27	0.42	51	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.56	4	0.02	6	0.23	4	0.76	3	0.82	1	0.79
Groot 1988		39	0.36	46	0.00	39	0.09	39	0.27	58	0.06	53	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.51	20	0.00	14	0.12	8	0.66	6	0.62	14	0.64
Hatto 1993		53	0.32	87	0.00	66	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.07	73	0.05
Hatto 1997		56	0.31	42	0.00	61	0.03	74	0.03	49	0.06	84	0.04
Horowitz 1949		42	0.35	49	0.00	46	0.04	56	0.04	38	0.30	57	0.11
Indjic 1988		79	0.23	65	0.00	79	0.03	86	0.03	63	0.06	81	0.04
Kapell 1951		45	0.34	52	0.00	48	0.05	48	0.05	41	0.13	62	0.08
Kissin 1993		84	0.19	66	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.07	68	0.05
Kushner 1989		49	0.33	59	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	43	0.14	61	0.08
Luisada 1991		67	0.26	63	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.07	64	0.05
Lushtak 2004		47	0.34	38	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	20	0.38	55	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		43	0.35	62	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.05
Magaloff 1978		3	0.59	2	0.14	2	0.19	6	0.73	6	0.73	6	0.73
Magin 1975		87	0.13	70	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	70	0.04	87	0.03
Michalowski 1933		51	0.32	73	0.00	62	0.03	77	0.03	66	0.06	80	0.04
Milkina 1970		86	0.16	88	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	57	0.05	88	0.03
Mohovich 1999		11	0.51	11	0.01	9	0.17	7	0.67	4	0.74	8	0.70
Moravec 1969		66	0.27	22	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.14	38	0.18	44	0.16
Morozova 2008		27	0.42	6	0.01	11	0.12	18	0.57	15	0.52	22	0.54
Neighaus 1950		4	0.58	23	0.00	4	0.22	2	0.81	2	0.75	3	0.78
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.31	79	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	57	0.06	77	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.46	29	0.00	23	0.10	27	0.46	22	0.41	31	0.43
Osinska 1989		2	0.61	3	0.03	3	0.20	5	0.74	4	0.80	4	0.77
Pachmann 1927		9	0.52	7	0.01	12	0.11	13	0.62	15	0.69	12	0.65
Paderewski 1930		63	0.27	74	0.00	70	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.06	67	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.46	50	0.00	13	0.11	17	0.58	9	0.70	13	0.64
Pierdomenico 2008		17	0.47	18	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.43	10	0.61	26	0.51
Poblocka 1999		23	0.44	45	0.00	15	0.13	20	0.53	6	0.63	18	0.58
Rabcewiczowa 1932		40	0.36	60	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.18	22	0.61	37	0.33
Rachmaninoff 1923		41	0.35	28	0.00	28	0.07	33	0.38	22	0.50	30	0.44
Rangell 2001		18	0.47	5	0.02	10	0.12	15	0.58	3	0.67	16	0.62
Richter 1976		8	0.52	17	0.00	16	0.13	14	0.60	30	0.64	15	0.62
Rosen 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosenthal 1930		29	0.42	35	0.00	25	0.09	23	0.50	12	0.64	19	0.57
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.26	13	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	27	0.54	50	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.29	67	0.00	71	0.05	50	0.05	23	0.52	46	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.38	19	0.00	38	0.12	38	0.28	13	0.59	33	0.41
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.26	75	0.00	58	0.03	71	0.03	17	0.52	56	0.12
Rossi 2007		77	0.25	26	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	15	0.45	54	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.23	76	0.00	85	0.04	67	0.04	60	0.05	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.29	39	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	36	0.25	43	0.18
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.43	30	0.00	36	0.11	29	0.43	22	0.37	34	0.40
Schilhawsky 1960		78	0.24	71	0.00	73	0.04	54	0.04	36	0.28	58	0.11
Shebanova 2002		24	0.43	53	0.00	34	0.08	28	0.44	44	0.18	38	0.28
Smith 1975		48	0.33	77	0.00	56	0.05	49	0.05	26	0.44	48	0.15
Sokolov 2002		46	0.34	34	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	16	0.46	40	0.21
Sztompka 1959		28	0.42	43	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.42	26	0.41	32	0.41
Tomsic 1995		76	0.25	61	0.00	78	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.05	79	0.04
Uninsky 1932		26	0.43	32	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.40	42	0.18	39	0.27
Uninsky 1971		30	0.41	15	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.51	8	0.55	24	0.53
Wasowski 1980		38	0.38	27	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.17	41	0.23	42	0.20
Zak 1937		52	0.32	89	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	45	0.12	63	0.07
Zak 1951		58	0.30	54	0.00	65	0.04	57	0.04	50	0.06	66	0.05
Average		1	0.67	1	0.65	1	0.64	1	0.90	6	0.67	2	0.78
Random 1		89	0.00	72	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	53	0.04	89	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.06	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.07	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	43	0.09	90	0.03

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).